Exposing the Liberal Lie through current events and history.
“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the democrats believe every day is April 15.” ******
"We will always remember. We will always be
proud. We will always be prepared, so we may always be free."
RONALD REAGAN

Thursday, March 08, 2007

DEMOCRATS PUSHING SURRENDER BY WITHDRAWAL

In a move that once again challenges the Constitutional authority of the deployment of troops by the President, House Democrats are preparing legislation that calls for a fazed troop pull out by the fall of 2008.

Additionally if the Iraqi government does not meet certain security goals the Democrat plan will escalate the pull out as a punishment for not complying to the planned security take over by the Maliki government.

This troop pull out is being tagged to the current request by the Bush Administration for an additional 100 billion dollars for the Iraq theater. In essence the Democrats are holding hostage funding for Iraq with unconstitutional plans for redeployment of troops which does not fall under their authority concerning the military.

By setting a date in this Democrat surrender move the House will give enemy forces both insurgent and terrorist a time line for American troop withdrawal which will allow this enemy to wait out and bide their time until next fall. Then after American troops leave have a virtual free reign to establish a terrorist haven in Iraq along with the militant Shiite's taking control of unprotected provinces.

Any military strategist will readily state the fallacy of this Democrat move because it clearly telegraphs to the enemy strategy because of this timetable. It also removes much of the decision making on the ground by command and control under General Petraeus as his decisions will be forced to comply with the Congressionaly mandated time line.

Democrats are attempting to usurp the Constitutional authority of the President while tying the hands of commanders in theater by forcing them to this timetable for withdrawal. Additionally the Maliki government will be held hostage to Democrat views of its progress. Democrats who have long opposed our presence in Iraq will deem anything that the Iraqi government does or takes longer to do than planned as evidence for an immediate pull out of American troops for non-compliance to the goals set for the government. Democrats will be looking for any reason to exercise this provision.

In conjunction to this benchmark provision for the Iraqi government, the bill also calls for the President to certify to Congress that the Maliki government has met the benchmarks and if not the immediate withdrawal of a certain percentage of troops will follow each certification that did not meet with the standards called for by Democrats.

This once again over steps Congressional authority over the military. The President is not required to certify military progress to the Congress but only to report on a regular basis. This certification process removes military control from the Commander in Chief and hands it over to the Congress as they will become the governmental branch that decides troop deployment and whether strategy is being accomplished.

There is some dissension with Democrats in the House for this move and Nancy Pelosi and House leaders are meeting behind closed doors to use the usual strong arm tactics to , "change, " the mind of Democrats who disagree. The vote is to take place later this month and a defeat would be considered a blow to Pelosi's leadership and her stance for troop withdrawal.

This blatant attempt by the Democrat House to hold funding hostage, usurp the Commander in Chief authority of the President for strategic and deployment use of the military and benchmark punishment of the Maliki government by holding troop withdrawal as the price of meeting goals is a dangerous precedence for the military, the nation, the Presidency and the Constitution. Democrats in this one move are attempting to rewrite the Constitution with legislation designed to cross the separation of powers and in the process raise the white flag of surrender to the enemy.

There is rejoicing in Baghdad today by insurgents and Al Qaeda as they have found an American ally in the Democrats of the House of Representatives.

21 Comments:

Ken, the Dems are going to give Bush freedom with his troop escalation plan to see if it works - they are fully funding his war escalation. Future operations then require certain benchmarks to be met by the Iraqis. If they are not willing to step up to the plate by this summer and the fall, why should we bother to provide a police force for them and spend $10 billion a month?

If we are ever going to leave Iraq, the Iraqi political establishment is going to have to come together. Giving them a deadline in 7 months (after 4 years of war), does not seem too much to ask of them.

General Petraeus gave a clear statement today that while military force is necessary, there is a need to establish a political solution to the warring factions to end the civil war.

Doesn't seem unreasonable to ask the Iraqis to step up and given the fact that an ever-growing majority of Americans are against this war, it is no longer sustainable.

The Democrats have worked themselves into a real pickle on this one. They are getting attacked from the Far left wing Lunatics of thier own party, (They themselves created by the "Let's constantly attack Bush" theme) the moderates of thier party, and the Republicans, and the Pro-Defense population.

I might add the Pro-Defense people are beginning to gather back up in numbers and have had about enough of this crap.

Basically the Dems dont stand a chance because Bush is going to Veto anything that has anything to do with defunding the Troops.

However this latest bill by the Dems (Isnt that 17 now?) that has Troop funding built in, also has alot of pork in it because the Dems squeezed all that in and now Bush may have to sign this mess just to get the Troops funded.

But Bush will never sign anything that has "Date Certain" on it and just hand the enemy amunition.

The plan has always been when the Iraqi's are capable of sustaining themselves and defending themselves we draw back, see if they can handle it on thier own, and then make plans about coming home and not one day before.

The Dems cannot micromanage a war from Congress. And they wont get the votes needed to override the President's Veto!

Basically the Dems have no choice in the matter, they can only cut off funding for the Troops at thier own peril.

There is only one President and he is the Commander-In-Chief of the Armed forces. I guess the Dems tend to forget that.

It is fine if the President vetoes the bill. That is his prerogative. However, it seems odd to me that you are willing to allow a corrupt, dysfunctional Iraqi government to sit on its hands and dictate when we can leave Iraq and stop spending American taxpayer money.

If we don't put pressure on them and they don't resolve their squabbling, we could be there for years waiting for the politicians to come together.

The Dems are willing to stay another year and a half. Without giving a specific date, how many years do you think we should remain in Iraq? Just give me an estimate - please don't say, "until the job is done."

ROb, the biggest problem here is the attempt by the Dems to over step Constitutional authority. They have no authority to micro manage Iraq through legislation and then to attempt it with a funding bill for the troops adds insult to injury.

I understand the need for benchmarks but to hold Iraq hostage by threatening to remove troops is not the way to inforce them. Additionally as I stated in the post thr President according to the Constitution , "reports, " to Congres concerning war situtations he is not required to certify progress and then if Congres is not happy with the certification they inturn take on the CIC responsibilities of deployment. The President alone has authority for the action of troops in sevice to the country and the Congress is trying by this legislation to remove that authority which violates the Constitution.

Additionally they in approving Patreus stated that they had full confidence in him and would allow time to see if the strategy is successful, (which I might add it is as evidenced by many things that even NBC is reporting), but now they are attempting to even tie his hands as his decisions would have to be made in accordance to their pull out strategy with the first benchmark for the Dems being July 1 of this year.

There are many who regardless of reported succes would force the implimintation of this provision because they will deem anything in a negative manner in order to force a pull out. They are not giving time nor are they allowing anything except to force a troop pull out, usurp the CIC and violate the Constitution.

Also Ken, if we set a date, the insurgents will know that date (thanks to the MSM blabbing everything) and they'll simply wait it out until we go home to rush in and take over Iraq, giving them the base they want for their murderous operations. Everything that has been accomplished, and every soldier that has died, will have been in vain. Setting an actual date for us to withdraw is the stupidest idea they've come up with yet. The Dems have outdone themselves with this one.

Ken, Patraeus clearly is concerned about moving the political process forward. He said there is no military-only option that will work.

That said, if Bush "reports" back to Congress that the Iraqi government is not stepping up, then it is in the interest of the American people to end our occupation of Iraq. Why should American soldier die for a foreign government that cannot get its act together?

It would be irresponsible for Congress to de-fund the war without laying out a timetable for the safe withdrawal of American forces. That is exactly what they are doing.

If, on the other hand, Bush's escalation strategy is working and progress is actually made in quelling the violence and the Iraqi politicians are stepping up, then Congress will continue to fund the war.

Congress is a co-equal branch of government that provides oversight. It is not threatening to de-fund the wark right now. It is asking that certain benchmarks be met in October (7 months from now). Rather than having an open-ended engagement, it makes sense to provide some boundaries given the Iraqi government's failures, the rising death toll for Americans, the exploding costs of the war, and the growing impatience of the American people.

I still don't understand what your concern is. However, like it or not, the war is not sustainable because the American people are increasingly against it.

It took six years to go from war to the ratification of the Constitution for us to have our form os governemtn, and we weren't even dealing with a civil war.

I know there are dozens of reasons why you can't compare the two, and I don't really do so except to make the point that even when the entire country in 1781 wanted a governemnt structure, it took time to make it work. The Iraqis unfortunately do not have everyone on board.

I am still waiting for the "change" that the dems promised the far left during the two year campaign for Congress.

Robert - at least you acknowledge that Iraq is in civil war (which many righties still do not). Why you believe American soldiers should have to die fighting in a foreign land for one faction of corrupt Iraqis over another is beyond me.

You are right about the problems in making comparisons, but think about his. We are foolishly and needlessly hanging around Iraq trying to help them create a government. If the French had occupied this country after the Revolutionary War, I think it is safe to say that there would have been a raging insurgency for years that would have prevented the formation of a real American government.

Iraqis need to figure out how to resolve their squabbles themselves.

As for Congress, Dems have been in charge for less than 2 months. The dialogue is already changing. Now, Congress is proposing a plan that would have American soldiers out in 2008 if the Iraqi government does not step up. That is in contrast to Bush's plan of escalate the war and stay the course indefinitely. Change is coming, but it cannot happen overnight.

Iran is a Shia state. The two biggest threats to Iran were the Taliban and Saddam because they were Sunni enemies of Iran.

Everyone in the world was with us against the Taliban because of 9/11. The hunt for bin Laden has been botched and we never finished the job because Bush was Hell bent on attacking Iraq. Bin Laden celebrated his 50th birthday and now the Taliban are rising up again. That is sheer incompetence.

To compound our problems, when we removed Saddam, who was a tin pot tyrant that posed no real threat to the U.S., we created a pro-Iranian Shia country that has emboldened Iran.

If we were to strike Iran, the 2/3 Shia population in Iraq would rise up against the U.S. and a horrible situation would become even worse for our troops.

On top of that, we have destabilized world oil prices which has given new found power to countries like Iran, Venezuela, and Russia. They have become rich as a result and are flexing their muscle around the world. China and India - the two fastest growing economies in the world - have signed significant energy deals with Iran that prevent any U.N. sanctions from having any real effect.

What have we gotten out of the deal? 3200 American soldiers dead, thousands wounded, a half trillion in debt that we owe the Chinese, Japanese, OPEC, and other countries who are letting up borrow money to fund the war (we don't have the money ourselves). Our military is worn down and remains tied down in Iraq. Oh yeah, and here is the best part - there is no end in sight if we go with the CIC's plan.

Hey meathead did it ever occur to you that we have already lost the war and want to actually save a few lives from being destroyed further? Wake up and smell the bullshit you elected. Or stay in denial either way Bush and co. have lost this war and thousands of lives along with it but who cares as long as they profited right? Oh by the way doesn't supporting the troops include decent medical care when they get back? Yeah that's what I thought fuckhead.......